ReviewHepatology communications2026
Risk-stratified surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Review in Hepatology communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide, with most cases arising in patients with cirrhosis or chronic hepatitis B. Current guidelines recommend semi-annual ultrasound with or without alpha-fetoprotein (AFP) testing for all at-risk individuals; however, this one-size-fits-all approach has important limitations, including suboptimal sensitivity, frequent false-positive results, poor adherence, and failure to account for substantial heterogeneity in individual HCC risk. Risk-stratified surveillance has emerged as a potential strategy to better balance surveillance benefits and harms by tailoring surveillance intensity and modality to patient-specific risk. We summarize and critically evaluate existing HCC risk stratification models, including clinical, biomarker-based, and imaging-based or elastography-based approaches. Although several models demonstrate promising performance, many lack robust external validation, underrepresent patients with metabolic and alcohol-associated liver disease, and inadequately account for competing risks such as non-liver-related mortality. We further discuss key challenges to implementing risk-stratified surveillance in clinical practice. Overall, while risk-stratified HCC surveillance has several promising characteristics over current paradigms, prospective validation and implementation studies are needed before widespread adoption. Aligning surveillance strategies with individualized risk has the potential to improve outcomes in patients at risk for HCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.